Leading climate researcher asked to be removed from UN study over its “alarmist, silly” statements

posted at 4:41 pm on March 31, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their foremost and super-cereal authoritative body on the matter, released phase two of their four-part report they compile every so often to make recommendations to policymakers the world over about how much the world is warming and what to do about it. As Jeff already noted this morning, this latest issue is replete with dire warnings about food security and declining crop yields, economic shocks, drought and water supplies, regional conflicts and war, and etcetera. So, in a nutshell, the same type of catastrophic warnings that progressive environmentalists have been prophesying for decades now, without any such calamities coming to pass.

The IPCC has several available explanations for the pause in warming we’ve been experiencing since the late 1990’s (and indeed, the panel hotly debated how best to present that information to the public in their first chapter of the report released last fall, ahem), ranging from particles from volcanic eruptions blocking out the sun’s heat to the accrued warmth currently residing within the depths of the oceans — but the point is, climate science is an extremely complex and nuanced science with a million different factors going into it, and we don’t quite know what we don’t quite know. That’s not to say that climate change isn’t a serious problem and that human activity couldn’t be some of the impetus behind it, but when climate scientists and globalist bureaucrats make huge, sweeping, and obviously politicized conclusions that they insist are absolutely beyond dispute and that the science is therefore “settled,” they kind of discredit their own cause, no? Like when, say, they dismiss one of their own as “fringe” for daring to step outside the very tiny box they have decided is the only way to think about climate change? Via the Financial Times:

Two of the world’s leading climate researchers have clashed over a report on the impact of global warming and rising sea levels. The chief author of the study by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said an economist drafting a key chapter had made “meaningful errors” that had to be fixed and was on the “fringe” of the scientific community’s thinking.

Chris Field, professor of environmental studies at Stanford University in California, made the comments about Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex in the UK, a senior author of the report’s chapter on climate change’s economic impacts.

Professor Tol revealed last week that he had asked for his name to be removed from the study’s summary – the most widely read section of the IPCC report – because he believed it was too “alarmist” and included “silly” statements about the vulnerability of people in war zones to climate change. …

“When the IPCC does a report, what you get is the community’s position. Richard Tol is a wonderful scientist but he’s not at the centre of the thinking. He’s kind of out on the fringe,” Prof Field said.

The good news, as rational optimist Matt Ridley explained in the WSJ this weekend based on leaks of the IPCC’s latest report, is that the UN actually did actually take a slightly more conservative stance this time around with making precise predictions and admitting to some of the vast areas of uncertainty to which climate science is prone. Even while it exaggerates the amount and causes of warming, the IPCC did get a little more cautious with the effects, Ridley writes:

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. ..

It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government. …

The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses “very little confidence” that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013. …

And the group’s dislike of dissent hardly breeds confidence in their methods or their motivations. As I’ve said before, these guys would be doing themselves a huge favor if they would just abandon the catastrophe-or-bust alarmism strategy on which they’ve been relying for years and the subsequent recommendations that require the world’s economies to conscientiously contract to save the planet — rather than more marginal and growth-oriented ideas that could actually convince more people to get on board.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

As Jeff already noted this morning, this latest issue is replete with dire warnings about food security and declining crop yields, economic shocks, drought and water supplies, regional conflicts and war, and etcetera.

In the real world of Science as opposed to the Ponzi Scheme Pseudo-Science world the scientific process works like this.

Any time you propose a theory, and that theory involves calculations that make predictions.

a) The equations must be 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

b) The data set’s plugged into those equations must also be likewise 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

c) If your theory makes predictions, and those predictions are inaccurate by any amount greater than the standard deviation given for error correction, then your theory is automatically deed as falsified.

d) When your theory makes multiple predictions, and every single one of those predictions falls outside of the standard deviation given for error correction by a significant margin, then not only is your theory deemed falsified, but so is your credibility.

As the father of a child who studied under Field at Stanford it breaks my heart to see him leading the IPCC scare mongering around the issue of climate change. It’s both sad and amazing at the same time, to see how the climate questions have perverted science.

And the group’s dislike of dissent hardly breeds confidence in their methods or their motivations. As I’ve said before, these guys would be doing themselves a huge favor if they would just abandon the catastrophe-or-bust alarmism strategy on which they’ve been relying for years and the subsequent recommendations that require the world’s economies to conscientiously contract to save the planet — rather than more marginal and growth-oriented ideas that could actually convince more people to get on board.

So, this is it in a nut-shell, at least too me. Instead of trying to ram something down our throats, cough…… Obamacare, and trying to take even more control over our lives – continue to study and document our climate and report the findings, period.

Final document increases predicted economic impact of global warming
It has been drafted by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
It says rising droughts and heatwaves will threaten food supplies

However, all of this ‘climate change’ nonsense is just cover for several other nefarious wants (needs?) of the governments who make up the UN.

They know the science doesn’t add up.

Do you really think it was about ‘saving the world?’

Since when have you known a politician to care about anyone other than themselves? Climate change is about money and control.

Making people pay for their ‘carbon footprint’ could generate billions in new tax revenue. It also serves as a handy tool to control the population by forcing you to choose ‘green’ everything (and of course, getting a kick-back from those choices).

The renewable fuel standard alone is enough to make me want to vomit as I pour 10% ethanol garbage gas into my 4.0L V8… damaging it further with every tank.

I realize I’m all over the place in this post… my brain must be fried from all the climate change.

because he believed it was too “alarmist” and included “silly” statements about the vulnerability of people in war zones to climate change. …

This is the reason my husband stopped giving to World Vision. They put so much of their focus on making sure these third world countries were “green.” When someone doesn’t have food and water, they could care less if the technologies that provide it are “green.” Green technology tends to be more expensive which means less are getting to the people.

The Church of Global Warming says the earth is dangerously heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their bitter cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming, and it’s High Priests, Power Filchers and Money Grubbers.

What would be the effect of this Global Warming fraud and coercion, if successful? To make part of the world fools and part hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Barack Obama and Al Gore and the Global Warming fraudsters have converted simple changes in the weather into an engine with which to try to enslave mankind to filch ever more power and ever more wealth to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Scientists.

Why is it a serious problem? What climate change is a serious problem? And how is man contributing to this serious problem?

There has been no warming for 17 years, regardless of what you read in the newspapers.

Johnnyreb on March 31, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Erica seems to add that to many of her articles on the silliness that is climate change. It seems like a battered wife syndrome of some kind, maybe in the blogging world its an requirement to acknowledge CC as fact before you can point out how stupid it is?

The Church of Global Warming says the earth is dangerously heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their bitter cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming, and it’s High Priests, Power Filchers and Money Grubbers.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

In the real world of Science as opposed to the Ponzi Scheme Pseudo-Science world the scientific process works like this.

Any time you propose a theory, and that theory involves calculations that make predictions.

a) The equations must be 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

b) The data set’s plugged into those equations must also be likewise 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

c) If your theory makes predictions, and those predictions are inaccurate by any amount greater than the standard deviation given for error correction, then your theory is automatically deed as falsified.

d) When your theory makes multiple predictions, and every single one of those predictions falls outside of the standard deviation given for error correction by a significant margin, then not only is your theory deemed falsified, but so is your credibility.

oscarwilde on March 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

What are you doing here, trying to introduce scientific principles to this debate? We can’t have that!

“When the IPCC does a report, what you get is the community’s position. Richard Tol is a wonderful scientist but he’s not at the centre of the thinking. He’s kind of out on the fringe,” Prof Field said.

So….the IPCC admits they hire and listen to fringe scientists.

Good to know as the world reads a report written by “fringe” scientists.

a) The equations must be 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

Dat old school.

b) The data set’s plugged into those equations must also be likewise 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

c) If your theory makes predictions, and those predictions are inaccurate by any amount greater than the standard deviation given for error correction, then your theory is automatically deed as falsified.

Thats retarded, sir.

d) When your theory makes multiple predictions, and every single one of those predictions falls outside of the standard deviation given for error correction by a significant margin, then not only is your theory deemed falsified, but so is your credibility.

If you don’t believe in God, then your life has no real point. People have a hard time living a pointless life. “Saving the earth” becomes the point of their lives. To make that meaningful the earth must be in danger. Therefore “global climate change” must be real or their lives are meaningless. Try to take the meaning of their lives away from them and they will fight tooth and nail. Admitting that the earth isn’t dying because of humans, is admitting their lives have no meaning.

As Jeff already noted this morning, this latest issue is replete with dire warnings about food security and declining crop yields, economic shocks, drought and water supplies, regional conflicts and war, and etcetera.

I love the part that says crop yields could decline by 0 to 1% per decade.

Predicting a decline of 0% includes every value possible that indicates an increase in crop yields over the same period.

So they’re aren’t saying yields will go down. They’re saying they could go up, down, or not change at all.

In the real world of Science as opposed to the Ponzi Scheme Pseudo-Science world the scientific process works like this.

Any time you propose a theory, and that theory involves calculations that make predictions.

a) The equations must be 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

b) The data set’s plugged into those equations must also be likewise 100 percent transparent and open to inspection by any and everyone.

c) If your theory makes predictions, and those predictions are inaccurate by any amount greater than the standard deviation given for error correction, then your theory is automatically deed as falsified.

d) When your theory makes multiple predictions, and every single one of those predictions falls outside of the standard deviation given for error correction by a significant margin, then not only is your theory deemed falsified, but so is your credibility.

oscarwilde on March 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

What are you doing here, trying to introduce scientific principles to this debate? We can’t have that!

slickwillie2001 on March 31, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Unless one is having a pseudo-Intellectual discussion on the relative meritocracy of pseudo-Scientific theories a brief refresher course on the principals of the Scientific Method are always relevant to any scientific paper under discussion.

Why don’t people understand that the climate has been changing for 3 and a half million years and will continue to long after we are gone. The ice will melt and islands will be under water again and then we will enter into yet another ice age and the ocean levels will go down and glaciers will cover part of the US again. And nothing we can do will change these cycles. The co2 has gone up dramatically in the last 17 years and the earth average temperature hasn’t budged. Wake up people. It’s the biggest hoax ever. Follow the money. Only scientist who agree with global warming are getting federal funding.

Diane Sawyer just proved to us that Global Warming is real and is caused by Humans. What do we little non-elite peons know when compared to ABC’s greatest journalist. She must be right. She is on tv. She told us that there had been a dramatic 3 degree increase in global temperatures since 1950. No comment about anybody who might disagree with her propaganda. Oh, and of course, hurricanes and drought are also caused by AWG.

Don’t quite understand the ”earth” has not warmed up in the last 17 years as being a rebuttal to AGW statements. Seems to me that thinking buys into the idea that warming is bad and it has stopped for an insignificant short period of time. Since the last ice age we have warmed quite a bit and that has been a good thing as without the warming billions of folks would have died well before their time. Okay, maybe only millions, but today after seeing my doctor I like a B before an M.

Maybe not warming up the last 17 years is a bad thing and caused many deaths? Show me the tipping point of warming and I will listen. So far…..global warming has been good to mankind.

Just another thought from an old guy who seems to have cold feet all the time. I hate cold feet.

I would be willing to listen to arguments if there were at least a smattering of integrity and honesty to be found out there.

But the whole debate is poisoned with government money in the US and abroad, with many millions in grant dollars given only to the ‘true believers’ who toe the line with their ‘results’. When this is the atmosphere in which research operates, any result that does not meet the prescribed criteria gets tossed as an ‘outlier’ even if keeping enough of those so-called ‘outliers’ would make them statistically significant. This is called ‘massaging the data’.

Politics, public opinion, cultural values, and religion have always had various levels of influence on scientific thought and research. An honest researcher with an intent to be objective will acknowledge this, and present findings in light of all these factors, and disclose potential conflicts of interest or prejudicial personal interests.

That honesty and genuine attempt at objectivity is missing from the vast majority what I see in modern climate science. As one with college degrees in the physical sciences, I find all this quite disgusting; a squandering of money and waste of intellect.

Don’t quite understand the ”earth” has not warmed up in the last 17 years as being a rebuttal to AGW statements.

HonestLib on March 31, 2014 at 10:05 PM

How long was warming occurring? What’s significant? Did you know that the global thermometer records are only 125 years old, of incredibly poor quality, adjusted to show warming, etc.? Did you know that proxy data is unreliable?

Maybe not warming up the last 17 years is a bad thing and caused many deaths?

Maybe, but if it helps expose CAGW as nonsense, then it’s a good thing.